Sir
I thought I understood the guidelines for determining scientific authorship: the individual making the greatest intellectual contribution is the lead author, followed sequentially by those making progressively lesser contributions. In addition, the final-author slot is sometimes reserved for a lab head or project initiator, who may have made little direct contribution to the paper but deserves some vague honour nonetheless.
But now I am confused. A collaborator of mine at the University of Cambridge asked to be moved from second to last position on a four-authored paper. When I asked why, he said the British Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which determines departmental rankings and government funding, gives greater credit to the final than even the second author on a multi-author paper. My confusion deepened when two other colleagues — both Americans — had a lively disagreement about who would be last author on a paper with seven authors.
The 'communicating' (or 'corresponding') author is often, but not always, the lead author. If he or she is not the lead, is some special significance attached to this? Does it count for something on the RAE? Some disciplines have evolved their own idiosyncratic rules. I have also noted that another common convention is to list authors alphabetically, but does the RAE know if Williams made a lesser or greater contribution than Anderson?
Is there a set of coherent authorship rules written down somewhere that, in my 20-year research career, I have managed to miss? If not, then perhaps there should be.
Please note that I am the first, last and communicating author on this Correspondence.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Nature's most recent Editorial stating its policy on this perennial topic, “Games people play with authors' names” ( Nature 387 , 831; 1997), can be seen at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v387/n6636/full/387831a0.html — Editor, Nature.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Laurance, W. Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists. Nature 442, 26 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/442026d
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/442026d
This article is cited by
-
Social goods dilemmas in heterogeneous societies
Nature Human Behaviour (2020)
-
Responsible Conduct of Research and Ethical Publishing Practices: A Proposal to Resolve ‘Authorship Disputes’ over Multi-Author Paper Publication
Journal of Academic Ethics (2020)
-
Scientific group leaders’ authorship preferences: an empirical investigation
Scientometrics (2014)
-
Measuring institutional research productivity for the life sciences: the importance of accounting for the order of authors in the byline
Scientometrics (2013)
-
The write position
EMBO reports (2007)